- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:34:46 +0000
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VmB5NmabM8w5g7E9WaquxZtPgaVPvRcM=kCE_dM7fLo5w@mail.gmail.com>
>Did you use the same dataset for analysis? yes regards Steve On 5 December 2012 07:30, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > Did you use the same dataset for analysis? > Silvia. > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Silvia, >> >> >Let's be careful what we write into the spec. We should not codify >> something that is common usage right now, but won't work in the future. >> Also, conversely, >we should not ignore something (Scooby Doo) that doesn't >> work right now (because <header>, <nav> etc are not in common usage), but >> might work very well >in a few years when most Web pages have picked up >> <header>. >> >> I agree we should be careful. From the stats below [1] which are from the >> same data set that i used to check Scooby, we should be seeing a much >> better success rate for Scooby than is evident. >> >> Rough stats on new element usage on HTML5 pages 28% nav, 16% article, >>> 31% header, 28% footer, 13% aside, 24% section. data set:http://www. >>> paciellogroup.com/blog/2012/04/h >>> tml5-accessibility-chops-data-for-the-masses/ … <http://t.co/LGRwZBW9> >> >> >> [1] https://twitter.com/stevefaulkner/status/270475603315146752 >> >> regards >> SteveF >> >> On 5 December 2012 06:56, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Steve Faulkner < >>> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1 December 2012 22:19, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >>>> > This would end up documenting the semi-mythical "Scooby Doo >>>> algorithm" for >>>> > cases when the <main> element is absent. >>>> >>>> >>>> From what I understand, the Scooby Doo algorithm concept was derived >>>> from section '4.13.1 The main part of the content' of the spec. It was >>>> named and further elucidated by bruce lawson [2] . Mike Taylor produced a >>>> script based on the concept [3] >>>> >>>> today I created a bookmarklet from the script (adds a dashed border and >>>> yellow background to what it identifies as the main content) >>>> >>>> Scooby Doo >>>> >>>> and tested it out on a hundred or so of the pages using <!DOCTYPE html> >>>> [4] I found that in approximately 95% of cases the algorithm identified the >>>> main content as either including all of the page content or an element at >>>> the very start of the page. In other words it is of little to no use in >>>> determining either what the main content consists of or where it starts. >>> >>> >>>> I think a much more useful algorithm would take into account id values >>>> commonly used to identify the main content. >>>> >>> >>> Let's be careful what we write into the spec. We should not codify >>> something that is common usage right now, but won't work in the future. >>> Also, conversely, we should not ignore something (Scooby Doo) that doesn't >>> work right now (because <header>, <nav> etc are not in common usage), but >>> might work very well in a few years when most Web pages have picked up >>> <header>. This is why I did my analysis assuming Web pages would use those >>> new elements - where would Scooby Doo end up? >>> >>> So, you could re-run your analysis by adapting your bookmarklet to run >>> Scooby Doo not just on the defined elements, but also on elements that have >>> a @class of header, nav, etc. That may be a bit fairer on Scooby Doo. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Silvia. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/links.html#the-main-part-of-the-content >>>> [2] http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2012/scooby-doo-content-element/ >>>> [3] http://pastie.org/4663081 >>>> [4] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/HTML5-main-content/ >>>> >>>> regards >>>> SteveF >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 07:45:49 UTC